Patrick Murphy Had A Bad 33rd Birthday

Yesterday was Wall Street errand boy Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL) celebrated his 33rd birthday on daddy's yacht. The sometimes business-partner of Donald Trump had something to celebrate too: he just surpassed the one million dollar mark in direct-- not county his sleazy SuperPACs-- cash from the Finnace Sector. He is the only non-incumbent from wither party running for the Senate, who the banksters have already gone over $1,000,000 for. Florida voters who are unaware of Murphy's shameful record in Congress should ask themselves why he is Wall Street's #1 priority this cycle. Believe me, it isn't because they see him as a friend to Florida seniors or consumers or homeowners or anyone else but themselves.

The sad excuse for a Democrat who backed the GOP plan to allow a so-called "Benghazi Committee" to turn the House into an anti-Hillary witch-hunt had another jolt while he was guzzling Dom Pérignon with his Republican friends. Alex Leary, the Tampa Bay Times DC Bureau chief broke the story that Murphy's hypocrisy on campaign finance rules-- he boasts how the fake reform group, EndCitizensUnited, endorsed him-- was exposed by his quasi-illegal coordination with his daddy's and Chuck Schumer's SuperPAC. Here's how he does it, skirting the law while legalistically avoiding prison for himself, his father and Schumer:

There’s Patrick Murphy strolling on a beach with a young man. They appear to be engaged in serious talk, and Murphy points in the horizon, but the video is silent.

There he is on the same beach holding a child’s hand. And another beach shot, this time with an older man and a woman, her arm locked in Murphy’s.

Now Murphy's in an orange grove with an old guy in a hat. Murphy looks pretty serious. But again, viewers have no idea what he and the man are talking about. The video is silent.

Suddenly we see the same orange grove only Murphy is walking with a different man in a hat. And then another man, hatless. We move on to Murphy at a diner with three older folks.

Murphy traverses hallways, looking busy. Works the phones in a darkened office. Visits a mapping business. Walks the street in friendly conversation with people. Pops into a welding garage.

The 5 minute 42 second video posted on the Democratic U.S. Senate candidate’s campaign website isn’t for the public. It’s “b-roll” to be used by super PACs or another related outside group that wants to make an ad on Murphy’s behalf.

This is how candidates in both parties get around the law barring direct coordination with super PACs and it’s notable given Murphy’s public stance against the super PAC era, calling it “gross.”

As we reported last year:

Murphy has been endorsed by End Citizens United and has sent out fundraising emails slamming the Supreme Court decision. Yet Murphy’s wealthy father has pumped money into a Super PAC supporting his House campaigns and Murphy was propped up by the House Majority PAC.

Murphy of course has a super PAC on his side in the Senate race. We have asked his campaign for a response.

The Senate Leadership Fund and America Rising, two GOP groups, cast Murphy as a hypocrite and used his b-roll to create its own ads.

This is the garbage candidate that Schumer talked Obama into endorsing, although according to an off-the-record discussion from a top Biden operative, financing for the presidential library was tied up with that endorsement as well. Meanwhile one of the most credible independent progressive mainstays in Washington, People for the American Way, endorsed progressive champion Grayson in the primary battle against Murphy. PFAW President Michael Keegan:

As a member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Grayson has stood out as a fiercely independent fighter who can get things done in the face of continued GOP obstruction. He’ll be a strong progressive voice in the U.S. Senate for critical issues like campaign finance reform, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and much more. PFAW is proud to endorse such a progressive champion as Rep. Grayson.

Considering the kind of heavy-handed pressure Schumer is putting on unions, fundraisers, donors and Democratic organizations to not endorse Grayson, PFAW-- like PCCC and DFA-- deserve credit for independence and courage. Grayson has been a member of PFAW for three decades because he believes in their mission. He explained his affinity to the group when he accepted their endorsement: "Starting at the age of 13, I was an avid viewer of All in the Family, Sanford and Son, and the other great Norman Lear TV creations. These shows not only brought photorealism to television, but also depicted and embodied the great dialogue in American politics: privilege vs. equality, power vs. justice. One could say that everything I need to know in life I learned from Norman Lear. And then he founded the first great mass organization in modern American politics, People for the American Way. People for the American Way has carried the torch for justice, equality, compassion and peace for two generations now. I was proud to become a member, three decades ago. I am even more proud to enjoy its endorsement today."

You can contribute to Grayson's campaign-- and to turning Florida's second Senate seat-- from red to blue (which would be a lot better than from red to purple or pink or whatever describes Murphy) by clicking on the thermometer:

Sarah Brady (1942-2015)

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, writes: "Join me in mourning the loss of Sarah Brady and share your note of tribute with us."

"I come before you today as not just another pretty face, but out of sheer talent."

-- Jim Brady, to a press corps aware that First Lady-to-be
Nancy Reagan had wanted a Ken doll as press secretary

"Neurosurgeon Arthur I. Kobrine later recalled telling the president's personal physician about Mr. Brady: 'It's a terrible injury. I don't think he has a chance. I don't think he's going to make it, but I think we should try.' "

-- from Jon Thurber's Washington Post obituary

"The bullies have succeeded too often. They have made cowardly lions out of too many members of Congress. . . .

"I implore our president and our Congress: Take a risk. Re-direct your moral compass. Plow new ground in your consciousness. Say 'no' to those who won't retreat from an ideology that is fixated on weapons of war that are turned on babies and grandmothers alike. An ideology that helps assassinate dreamers and the dreams they hold dear. That litters across our fruited plains the bloodstains of innocents. That has kept us from forming that more perfect union, and pistol-whipped us into a seemingly endless cycle of wounding, maiming and murdering one another."

-- Sarah Brady, in a January 2011 CNN Opinion piece,
"Sarah Brady to Obama: Lead on gun control"

by Ken

The above quotes are lifted straight from my post of Aug. 4, 2014, on the passing, after his many years of struggles, of Ronald Reagan's first White House press secretary, shot in the line of duty, Jim Brady.

This evening I thought I was just about to escape from the office for the weekend when I noticed the following e-mail that had slipped into my inbox:

Dear Kenneth,

It is with a heavy heart that I write to inform you of the passing of our Chairperson, Sarah Brady. Our deepest condolences go to her family as we mourn her loss.

Together with her husband Jim “Bear” Brady, Sarah was the heart and soul of this organization. In the history of our nation, there are few people, if any, who are directly responsible for saving as many lives as Sarah and Jim. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (The “Brady Law”) has prevented more than 2.4 million sales of firearms to criminals and other dangerous people and remains, by far, the most significant achievement in the history of the gun violence prevention movement.

All Americans are safer today because of Sarah Brady’s resilience, compassion and what she always said she enjoyed the most: her hard work in the trenches with this organization, which she continued right up to the very end.

Today our nation has lost a great hero, and I have lost a dear friend. I am certain that Sarah would want nothing more than to know we are carrying on her and Jim’s legacy with the same passion and dedication that made her so remarkable.

Sincerely,
Dan Gross
President, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

JUST RECENTLY, I WROTE ABOUT NORMAN LEAR --

in a March 20th post called "If Norman Lear isn't an 'Iconic Character of Comedy,' who is? (And a mensch besides)," happily not a post-mortem piece -- that with the creation of People for the American Way "he did as much as any one person can do to take the curse off the term ["liberal"] and fight back against right-wing propaganda to promote good solid American liberal values." In fact, at the ensuing celebration of Norman thrown by the Museum of the Moving Image and the Comedy Hall of Fame, the 93-year-old guest of honor insisted that he's so imbued with those traditional American values that he thinks of himself as a conservative!

Well, you could equally well say about both Jim and Sarah Brady, both imbued with those good traditional American values, that no one could have done more than each of them did to push back against the gun insanity besetting the country.

This was the opening paragraph of my August piece:

I hope it isn't necessary to explain the significance and sadness of the news of the death of Ronald Reagan's first presidential press secretary, Jim Brady. He didn't ask to become a hero, and certainly wouldn't have chosen the circumstances that led him to it, but I don't know that there's a better word for the role that he, his wife Sarah, and the rest of the family took on in the wake of the calamitous events of March 30, 1981.

But then this was the second paragraph:

I worry, though, that over the decades, as the cloud of gun-happy insanity has enshrouded the land, the heroic efforts of the Bradys to bring some measure of sanity to national gun policy have already been forgotten -- thanks to the coalition forged by the country's violence-for-profit merchants of mayhem and death with rank-and-file U.S. gun-worshippers in the death grip of Tiny Penis Syndrome.

There was a third paragraph, before I turned the floor over to the Washington Post's Jon Thurber for a proper obituary of Jim B, and it seems relevant too:

Even before that calamitous day, Jim Brady had established himself as a decent guy, setting himself apart from the general run of Reagan appointees and from the general run of presidential press secretaries. The class he and Sarah showed when they were put to such an extreme test set them way above most of us mere mortals. It would be nice if Jim's death inspired some revived respect for the work the Bradys tried so hard to do via the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Well, um, it would be nice now if Sarah's death inspired some revived respect for the work the Bradys tried so hard to do.

Thank you again, Jim, and thank you, Sarah.

#

If Norman Lear isn't an "Iconic Character of Comedy," who is? (And a mensch besides)

Wednesday night at the Museum of the Moving Image, Norman will also be signing copies of his book. I know from Howie how hard he worked on it, and how much it mattered to him. I wouldn't be surprised if I pick up a copy at the museum bookshop.

by Ken

For a lot of us, Norman Lear is twice a hero. First, and most conspicuously, he changed the face of television. When Alan Alda appeared at the Museum of the Moving Image on that magical night in October 2013, as the first in an "ongoing series" called Iconic Characters of Comedy presented jointly by MoMI and the Comedy Hall of Fame, that CBS wouldn't have considered doing M*A*S*H (1972) if it hadn't already allowed TV comedy to enter a new world of reality with The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970) and Norman Lear's All in the Family (1972).

Guess who's next up in the Iconic Characters of Comedy series. Yes, this Wednesday, March 25, it's Norman Lear's turn. MoMI and the Comedy Hall of Fame are presenting a program called "The Architect, Norman Lear: How Lear Changed Comedy and the Culture." As soon as I got the e-announcement of the event, I clicked through to buy my ticket. (Okay, I did check my calendar first. But if there'd been a schedule conflict, I would have tried to decided it in favor of the Iconic Characters of Comedy event.)

Of course there's another reason why Norman Lear is a hero to American liberals. With, finally, the creation of People for the American Way, he did as much as any one person can do to take the curse off the term and fight back against right-wing propaganda to promote good solid American liberal values. PFAW has had a decidedly mixed history, demonstrating perhaps how hard it is to guard any organization against the in-creep of status-quo-loving bureaucrats and careerist opportunists. But I think there is, as I suggested, a limit to what even the most visionary founder can do. He created the organization, and he meant business.

I've been hearing "Norman" stories for years from Howie, who was brought into PFAW, where he's made as much trouble as he could, and also gotten to know Norman well. I might have been able to press it into a chance to meet Norman, but what would I have said? "I'm a big fan, a big fan"? (At least, if I get a chance to say hello to him on Wednesday, I can tell him I'm a friend of Howie's!)

I actually came late to All in the Family. I had been really put off by the mindless bigotry of Archie Bunker, which seemed to be making him a hero to many American televiewers. Eventually, when I started actually watching the show regularly, I discovered what Norman and Carroll O'Connor, whom I suppose we can think of as the joint creators of Archie, always knew: that Archie is at heart an enormously decent human being, but one whose brain is crammed full of the ghastly distortions of mindless American orthodoxy.

Then there was Edith. My mother loved Edith, and it's not hard to see why. It's not hard to see why any mother would love Edith, who had no head for politics (fortunately, in this case) but took the job of motherhood so seriously. "Mom" is of course a pillar of traditional American values, and Jean Stapleton as Edith showed us why.

So who are these Iconic Characters of Comedy?

Week in and week out, for years, we invite our favorite television characters into our homes. We come to know and accept them, in spite of the fact that they may have different ideals and values. Exposure to them modifies our experience, and helps modulate social change. Some characters have become iconic, as both catalysts and reflections of evolving American social values. Iconic Characters of Comedy is a high-profile discussion series designed to celebrate key artists and their work; tracing the comedic experience of the artist, the development of the character, and the social ramifications and influence these icons have had. The series will pair artists with esteemed moderators, to create unforgettable and illuminating evenings. 

I've already described the Alan Alda event, "The Rationalist: Alan Alda as Hawkeye Pierce in M*A*S*H," as "magical." It was one of my great evenings. Alan Alda, in conversation with Jeff Greenfield, gave abundant evidence of being just as smart and funny and thoughtful and insightful as one would have assumed, and with all that he shared about his 11 seasons of work on the show as an actor and his additional work as a writer and even director, he and the TV M*A*S*H team knew exactly what they were trying to do, and often had to fight awfullly hard to be able to to do what for those 11 seasons they did so amazingly well. That night I left feeling like I was walking on air.

The Iconic Characters of Comedy series also included a wonderful evening (for some reason not listed on the ICoC Web page) last October with Marlo Thomas, "The Visionary: Marlo Thomas, TV's First Independent Woman," in conversation with Gloria Steinem and Debra Messing. That was a great night too, and for pretty much the same reasons. In producing as well as starring in That Girl, Marlo had a strong sense of how revolutionary the show was, and with the help of people who also understood, fought hard to create a new presence in TV comedy. As the event description put it, "Paving the way for Mary Richards, Murphy Brown, and other iconic women's roles to come, Ms. Thomas's character helped to ignite a seismic cultural change, challenging female stereotypes and reshaping the way women's roles were perceived on television and in society."

WEDNESDAY'S EVENT

The Architect, Norman Lear: How Lear Changed Comedy and the Culture

Part of Iconic Characters of Comedy
Wednesday, March 25, 7:00 p.m.

Norman Lear in conversation with Bill Carter and Al Roker

Co-presented with the Comedy Hall of Fame

All in the Family. Maude. Good Times. The Jeffersons. As writer, producer, director, satirist, and political activist, the legendary Norman Lear created some of the most important and influential comedy programs in television history. As President Bill Clinton said when giving him the National Medal of Arts, “He held up a mirror to American society and changed the way we look at it.” Norman Lear revolutionized the medium of television by infusing comedy with social commentary. His work created a profound sea change and ushered in the modern era of comedy, by creating such iconic characters as Archie Bunker, Maude, and J.J., in sitcoms that dealt openly with issues of race, class, sexism, politics, the women’s movement, and war, reflecting a country in turmoil. 

In this evening presented by the Comedy Hall of Fame, Norman Lear will join us for a discussion that will include clips from his greatest shows, moderated by former New York Times media reporter Bill Carter and Al Roker, feature anchor on NBC's Today show. 

Both member and nonmember tickets ($12/$20) can be bought online via the link on the event Web page.

See ya Wednesday!

#

Aaron Schock (R-IL) May Have Been Beating Off Watching Ryan Debate But He Didn't Make Any National Coming Out Day Announcement

Which is more real to you?

There was a time when strangers would stop me in the street and say they had seen me in a movie or video, especially the Wilco film. I met someone who became a lifelong friend because he asked me for my autograph at a party after having seen me in a Ramones video. A couple months ago Brendan Toller came over and shot me for his upcoming film Danny Says. But the first time I ever saw my name in lights-- or on the screen in any case-- was for a second when the credits rolled on PBS after a showing of the 1984 film The Times of Harvey Milk, which won an Oscar as Best Documentary that year. I wasn't in the movie and I was shocked to see my name in the credits. It was there because the filmmaker had used some stills I had taken of Harvey over the years. I had been unable to bring myself to watch it-- too distraught-- for over a decade and had no idea my name was attached to it.

Harvey was an important person in my life when I first moved to the West Coast after having lived in Europe for nearly 7 years after college. I was penniless when I got to San Francisco but I had been teaching darkroom technique (as a form of meditation) at The Kosmos in Amsterdam and was eager to ditch a 9-5 job and work as a photographer. Harvey ran a camera shop right next door to my favorite record shop and hang out, Aquarius, on Castro Street. We got to know each other and he eventually staked me with the equipment I needed to set up my own darkroom. In return, I became the "official" photographer for his election campaigns. It was fun and, obviously, I had no idea Harvey would go on to become an icon for the LGBT community.

I'll never forget a day at the camera shop soon after he was finally elected Supervisor-- the first openly gay man in California to ever be elected to office. His victory was national news, even in Time and Newsweek and he was getting bagfuls of mail. He read me some of them, one from a high school kid in Kansas or Iowa or Nebraska... I can't recall, one of those traditional farm belt states. The kid just wanted to say thank you to Harvey for giving him hope, hope that he didn't have to kill himself. Harvey and I were both weeping when he read it. I'm weeping right now writing about it.

Sometimes I dismiss Out Magazine as not much more than some lightweight pabulum between endless fashion ads. But then they never fail to throw a bucket of cold water in my face and remind me why I still always like it when my copy arrives in the mail. The current issue features a cover-story, "Prime Time," that includes a time line of the history of gays on TV from which I learned that another friend and mentor, Norman Lear, put the first gay character on a TV sitcom ever, the 5th episode of All In The Family in 1971 when Philip Carey played a former pro football player. (For the historian among us, the full episode is embedded below.) The cover story is basically composed of half a dozen essays on "how the evolution was televised." One of them Gay TV and Me, by Daniel Mendelsohn, is something everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should read. His premise is that his life might be very different today if boys were kissing on TV when he was growing up, the way they are, despite the ravings and rantings of the religious right, today. The first kiss on Glee was a watershed moment for him. He didn't whoop and cheer. He cried.

At the drop of a hat, I’d go into my satirical History of Gay Non-Kissing in Popular Culture spiel, lingering with special indignation on the climactic moment in Making Love did; in it, the sexy, bee-stung, motorcycle-racing gay rake played by Harry Hamlin finally puts the moves on a prim, “questioning” doctor (Michael Ontkean) by… hugging him.

Things had got better since then, of course, and there had been other gay kisses on TV and in movies before the Kurt-Blaine lip-lock that night. But there was something special about the Glee kiss, something that made it feel like a fulfillment. The high school milieu, for one thing: Most of us begin our long histories of desiring in our early teens, and the longings that impel us then, and the fantasies they create, haunt us long afterward, often for the rest of our lives.

In the case of people my age, born in the 1960s, teenagers in the 1970s, before the tectonic sociological shifts of the 1980s that finally put gay people and their issues front and center in American culture, those longings were, more often than not, frustrated and ashamed. The idea of finding true love-- mutual love-- in high school was, quite simply, unimaginable. When, in the fall of 1977, I finally confessed my feelings to the swimming star I’d been crushing on all through high school, he crisply informed me that he’d never speak a word to me again.

...It’s difficult today to convey how utterly isolated you felt as a gay child growing up in the ’60s and ’70s. This isn’t to say that it’s not still an ordeal for many: As we know, the bullying and terror and torment are just as prevalent in many places. But one crucial thing has changed. The gay teen today has grown up in a culture that has become pretty casual about representations of gay people—in movies, TV, music, literature, advertising. And then there’s the Internet: Access to information, discussion groups, and forums can at least give a gay youngster some notion of what being gay might be like and who’s actually out there.

Part of the torture of growing up gay 40 years ago, by contrast, was precisely that there was nothing out there that you could look at and say, “That’s me.” If you secretly liked other boys, you were pretty much convinced that you were the only boy in the world who had these feelings about other boys-- or that, if you weren’t, there was no way to make contact with them. The only place to see another gay boy was in the mirror.

And what little there was on TV and movie screens was pretty scary. When I was six or seven, I was allowed to stay up late on Wednesdays-- till 7:30, that is-- to watch my favorite show, Lost in Space, a sci-fi updating of The Swiss Family Robinson. Already at some dim level I was aware that I was far more interested in the handsome dark-haired copilot, Don, than I was in his beauteous blond love-interest, Judy; much less dimly, I was aware that there was something “wrong” with the show’s villain, the stowaway Dr. Zachary Smith. Pretty much every episode was generated by some conflict between the Robinsons, a space-age idealization of the all-American family, and the cowardly Dr. Smith. I couldn’t know it then, but Smith was being played as a queen: mincing, fussy, his vocabulary too high (“Oh the pain! The agony!”), his motivations too low. (In every confrontation with aliens, he’d either collaborate or flee.) Even at seven, I perceived that he was, somehow, “gay”-- this, even though I didn’t really know what gay was.

A few years later, when I was 12 or 13, I had a better idea about myself, and was fervently hoping that the available options, once I grew up, were going to be more like Don and less like Dr. Smith. But the picture in the early 1970s wasn’t a very hopeful one. As far as I knew, the only person who was clearly, identifiably gay on TV was Paul Lynde. We’d already grown to know him as Uncle Arthur on Bewitched. He was another of those crypto-homosexual characters from whom so many of us absorbed our first images of gayness: a mincing prankster in double-breasted plaid suits with exaggerated gestures and a hyena laugh. In Lynde’s case, you didn’t have to guess what his predilections were: As a perennial guest star on Hollywood Squares, Lynde could be startlingly open in his hints about his homosexuality. (Host, giving a clue: “You’re the world’s most popular fruit. What are you?” Lynde: “Humble.”) Slightly more sinister to me, then, was the constant basso continuo of-- I didn’t know the word then-- kink, the dark allusions that slithered and hissed just behind Lynde’s humor. When given the clue, “George Bernard Shaw once wrote, ‘It’s such a wonderful thing, what a crime to waste it on children.’ What is it?” Lynde replied, “A whipping.”

And yet even as I puzzled over the thought that being gay was somehow tied up with being someone who enjoyed pain, I was also learning from Lynde. The endless indulgence in double entendre, the resort to coded language: I understood, these could be useful tools in a world in which forthrightness was impossible. There was also a lesson learned, perhaps, from Uncle Arthur: You could survive in a treacherous world by being amusing, by being an entertainer. What you felt, you hid, or you encoded; what you said must be witty, and harmless.

By the mid-’90s, when I moved to New York City to write full-time, AIDS had made gay people more visible than ever before. But how? Not the least of the epidemic’s cultural effects was to politicize the question of how gay people were represented in pop culture. No one, needless to tell, was ever happy. If a gay character was the tiniest bit swishy, people would be up in arms denouncing “gay stereotypes”; if a gay character was “straight-acting,” people would be up in arms denouncing assimilation. Even after the most intense period of gay activism had subsided, the issues remained. For some, Will on Will & Grace was too square, not “gay enough”; but then, perhaps Jack was too gay. The central problem, it seemed to me, was that there can’t ever be an accurate representation of gay people on TV, for the very good reason that there isn’t a monolithic “gay person” to be represented.

But by then, when I was often writing about the arts and gay culture (primarily for this magazine, when it first started), it didn’t seem to matter very much. Whatever you thought about them, whether they seemed “realistic” or not, there was a huge smorgasbord of gay characters, from “straight-acting” types to queens to fey boys to jocks, and of gay story lines, on TV, in all sorts of shows: from dramas to sitcoms to cartoons. (Even Homer Simpson got kissed by a man.) That, to me, has always been the point: Like anyone else surfing during prime time, you can at least get some sense of what the options might be. And one of those options, now, if you’re a high school kid with a mad crush on another boy, is that you can let that other boy know how you feel, and that, instead of him turning away and never speaking to you again, he might just give you a kiss.

I can’t imagine, really, how things would have turned out had I been able to watch such a thing in 1975, when I was aching to see what two boys kissing might look like. But I’m sure I’d have felt less like a freak, less like what I secretly wanted was utterly impossible. Well: I was born a generation too early. I like to think that 40 years from now, when the gay kid of 2012 is watching his gay kids watching gays on TV, no one will be crying.

Inspiration-- Norman Lear Talks About The Spiritual Inspiration That We All Crave

Earlier today we looked at a kind of political inspiration I was lucky enough to experience at a People For the American Way anniversary celebration last week. It was the opening "act." The evening closed with the organization's founder-- a hero of mine-- Norman Lear. Norman offered a different kind of inspiration, inspiration for the soul and it was probably the best speech I ever heard him give. I was stunned and I hope it comes through for you in the video above. And, believe me, it was far more than just a critique of the right's bumper sticker religiosity. Let me quote a couple of paragraphs:

I can't  believe it has been 30 years since I was startled by the proliferation of TV evangelicals across radio and television--  Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, James Robison and Pat Robertson, among others, mixing politics and religion-- and reminding me when I was 9 or 10 years-- of listening to Father Coughlin on the radio-- ranting against Franklin Roosevelt, liberals, the New Deal and, in his case, Jews.
 
I decided to take them all on with a film and started writing one I called Religion-- hoping to savage these TV ministries much in the way Paddy Chayevsky savaged the Networks.
 
And then, one morning I'm watching the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart-- and I see him ask his viewers-- his TV congregation-- to pray for the "removal" of a Justice of the Supreme Court... and it scared the hell out of me.
 
I couldn't wait the 2 or more years it would take to write and make my film, so I made that TV spot you saw a bit of earlier-- the blue collar worker.
 
I paid to run it on a local TV station in DC and it caused so much talk that all three networks--there were only three at the time-ran it on their 7 o'clock news and, like an act of spontaneous combustion-- People For The American Way was born.
 
From that day to this, I haven't gotten up and read my newspapers when I didn't thank God that People For  was there.
 
I take great comfort knowing we have active members and supporters in 50 states - activists who wish for everyone the freedom to read any book or movie of their choice-- create or appreciate even the most challenging art-- who believe the government has no business telling us who or how to love-- members and supporters who truly believe in equal justice and equal opportunity under the law-- who appreciate to their toes the blessings of an independent judiciary...

 
Our government, no matter the party in power, it aches me to say, was of no help in this regard. Often quite the contrary.
 
For example, 30 years ago we had something called the Fairness Doctrine.
 
The Fairness Doctrine, enforced by the FCC, held that the media provide balance and objectivity in its news and discussion shows.
 
So, for example, when People for the American Way saw Pat Robertson espousing only one point of view on a political matter-- and on a religious broadcast at that-- we notified the FCC  and that ministry, often the entire Christian Broadcasting Network, was forced to provide us with equal time to respond. That sounds right, doesn't it? Fair and balanced news reporting?  Where have we heard that before?
 
People For used the Fairness Doctrine so effectively until it was repealed in 1987.
 
On May 13, 1982 I received this letter from the Reverend Pat Robertson, President of the Christian Broadcasting Network:

Dear Norman,

Last week, your organization challenged our program on KTLA in Los Angeles, and yesterday, the sales manager of KTLA called our headquarters and said, "If you discuss anything political on your program, next week we will take it off the air."
 
Norman, you are not merely trying to silence a member of the press, you are trying to silence a prophet of God. I warn you with all solemnity-- Norman, 'Your arms are too short to box with God.' The suppression of the voice of God's servant is a terrible thing!  God himself will fight for me against you-- and he will win. I remain, sincerely yours, Pat Robertson."

 
Unfortunately, too many of us to the left of center tend to laugh at such as this.
 
I am chilled by it.
 
With good reason.
 
On October 1, 1981, hundreds of thousands of people belonging to the Moral Majority received these words  in a newsletter from Jerry Falwell. "Dear friends, I am about to name the man that some people believe to be the greatest threat to the American family in our generation: Norman Lear!"
 
He went on to talk about the filth and sexual perversion that my shows brought into America's living room-- but calling me "the greatest threat to the American family" earned me some hate mail-- and death threats-- one so threatening that my family and partners insisted I secure protection.
 
This religiously stoked hatred threatens humanity everywhere across the globe today-- and it is very alive in our America as well-- and most threatening when it comes with a partisan political tinge. People For has stood as a bulwark against that-- in the press, in the media, and by example.
 
When we produced a two-hour special, I Love Liberty, years ago, our co-chairs were Gerald Ford and Lady Bird Johnson.
 
On the same stage we had Barry Goldwater, John Wayne and Jane Fonda, all contributing to the idea that, fight as we may over policy and ideology, we stand united when it comes to basic American principles.
 
We continue to work toward that end today. 6 weeks ago-- my People for the American way credentials quite in tact--  I accepted an invitation to accompany Nancy Reagan to the Republican debate at the Reagan Library.
 
Her husband, with whom I had a friendly, however  contentious, relationship would have been happy to see me there, I know.
 
That civility is so unlike anything we hear from the Republican candidates as they battle each other. Newt Gingrich, like the others, cloaks everything he says today in a kind of bumper sticker religiosity.
 
We on the left have ceded the God and values talk to the Right and I think it's been a big mistake. The "What's it all about, Alfie?" questions make for the best conversation going. I consider myself as much a believer-- as religious if you will, as the next guy-- but it's MY belief system. I have thanked whatever and whoever is responsible for my being alive with every wake up. Virtually every time I've bitten into a ripe peach or looked into my children's eyes or enjoyed a great laugh in a group, I've been grateful, often to the point of tears.
 
I once asked a great theologian and friend in Vermont to give me the shortest definition he could of "worship." He gave it to me in one word-- "gratitude."
 
You don't agree with that, no problem-- so long as you don't decry it. If worship for you means going to a church or a synagogue or a mosque, reading from a specific sacred text, wonderful. Or if you choose not to believe altogether... I offered my life in a war for you to believe whatever way you do.
 
But it is also my view that we humans and our faith systems are so gloriously complex that you can take any amount of people sitting in the same pews, knee to knee, every Sunday of their lives, reading and praying from the same sacred text-- and like no two snow flakes, no two thumb prints-- no two compacts with the Almighty will be the same.
 
The way we think and feel and relate to the deity is unique to each of us.
 
Our founders clearly intended that there be a level of separation between church and state.
 
I was just trying to build a wall of understanding, of common sense-- to go along with the notion that it's a poor idea to mix politics and religion-- and a good idea-- to back that caution with laws that make that clear.
 
For 30 years, I've brought my perspective to People For the American Way and linked arms and minds and spirits with people of all faiths and experiences who have brought their unique perspective to the work of the organization.
 
What unites us are the promises and guarantees of our founding documents, and the precise language with which they are expressed.
 
The majesty of words and phrases like "Endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The constitutional guarantee of Equal Justice under the law and the promise of Equal opportunity for all.
 
Then there are the last words of the Declaration of Independence where the founders pledge  their "lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor."
 
"Sacred honor." Feels  antique, doesn't it?
 
We don't sense much of that today, do we? The last time I came across Sacred Honor was watching The Godfather.
 
I want to suggest we lefties start laying claim to what we see as "sacred"-- and serve it up proudly to the Religious Right-- to the James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Karl Rove hate-mongers, sheathed in sanctity-- and to the Koch Brother types that fund them-- and use them so effectively for their own political power-grabbing purposes!
 
Over the past several decades, the power-grabbing right has built a powerful infrastructure of radio and TV networks.
 
They've built think tanks, colleges and law schools.
 
And funded political groups that prepped the way for the Supreme Court, in Citizen's United-- to grant Corporations the right to provide any amount of financial backing to a candidate or a cause just like any other average citizen.
 
And all of it carried off with an air of holier-than-thou sanctity-- no less apparent than Pat Robertson's when he told me my arms were too short to box with God.
 
And now, as frightening as it is, where do we find that holier-than-thou sanctity most apparent in politics today?
 
Among the seven candidates attempting to prove in every debate we have seen that they are the right kind of Christian to be the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
 
In light of the circumstances we liberals and progressives have succumbed to, it is hard to remember that we-- not the right-- WE are the spiritual heirs to those Americans who struggled to end slavery and segregation-- to end child labor and win safe conditions and a living wage for workers.

 And WE are the spiritual heirs to those who conceived of and fought for just about every bit of social legislation in the last century, legislation that everyone, left and right, now take for granted-- and that resulted-- until not that many years ago-- in the most flourishing, hopeful and empowered middle class in the history of nations.
 
And yet, despite being the spiritual heirs to all of that, it is the Right that presumes ownership of everything that pertains to God and to the Flag. 
 
Looking to the future, I will rely on People for the American Way and its sons and daughters in Young People For and Young Elected Officials to continue to fight for that wall of separation between government and religion.
 
I will rely on them  to insure that equal protection of the law covers all Americans no matter their race, religion or sexual orientation.
 
And I will rely on them to claim their share of God and the flag-- by acknowledging  that the God for all believers on the right is the same God  for all believers on the left as well-- and that no one side can lay sole claim to the family values, patriotism and all the other good stuff that stems from that source.

Norman's worry that the left has ceded the field to the bigots and hate-mongers has more than a few exceptions. More and more Christians who have put Jesus and his message of love first have come to politics as part of the battle for human dignity. One, Colorado state Rep. Joe Miklosi, has been endorsed by Blue America in his run for Tom Tancredo's old congressional seat in the Denver suburbs. His progressive political vision is bound up with a spiritual view very similar to Norman's.

"This theme has motivated me to pursue public policy that is more fair and just for every person. It clarifies, for example, my stance to repeal the unjust ‘Don’t Ask, Don't Tell’ law because all people should be able to serve in the United States military regardless of how they were born. The aspiration toward these goals helped to inspire my sponsorship of the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act beneficiaries are good kids, who play by the rules, earn good grades point averages and want to contribute to our society. By creating educational and workforce development opportunities for students we can energize and empower individuals and families and grow our economy for all Americans.

"In regard to Wall Street and economic reform, I respect those that take peaceful action to advocate for an economy that rewards hard work, encourages innovation and investment in education, retools Americans, and produces livable wages.
 
"We can not allow Wall Street elitists to break the rules, change the rules, and keep moving the goalpost, away from hard working families. Because of Wall Street greed and arrogance in 2008, millions of families were robbed of the dreams they worked and saved for, our nation was hobbled, and the Wall Street crowd sauntered into Washington to rewrite the rules again-- to give themselves a bailout. That’s not thrift, it’s theft.

"It is amazing to see so many inspired people-- from and for various points of view-- advocating for change and a fair financial system."

After he watched the video of Norman's speech he had a response that flows from the same spirit: "All across America, progressives and conservatives worship together. Our faith should be a source of strength and inspiration, not a foundation for conflict. In a pluralistic American society, it is important that the government celebrate the diversity of all viewpoints. The American public square is large enough for the Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, the Agnostic, the Atheist, other belief systems to coexist. 
 
"One of my favorite verses in the Bible is from Micah: seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God. The Sermon on the Mount and the blessings are another powerful set of teachings that inspire. These transcend politics and political viewpoints and certainly, no one political party can lay claim to owning them. 

"In the end, be motivated by hope and love-- not fear-- especially not fear of others who hold different religious viewpoints. The former leads to a more fulfilled life. The road-map of fear leads to anger, which leads to hate, which leads to suffering. Rather, faith and hope and love teach patience and forgiveness and yes, even acceptance."  
Norman isn't running for office; Joe is-- and you can contribute to his campaign here at the Blue America Act Blue page. There's a reason his campaign slogan is "Not Your Ordinary Joe."

NORMAN LEAR AND HIS PALS WILL MATCH YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO SAVE THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM

Regular DWT readers know the seriousness of what Bush has brought on regarding the extreme reactionary Supreme Court. People For the American Way, an social justice organization founded by Norman Lear, has been in the forefront of the fight to keep the judiciary a legitimate branch of government, not a partisan branch of the Republican Party. They were very successful in leading the fight to keep Robert Bork off the Court but, frankly, did not have the funds for the full frontal campaign that would have been required to bring the kind of pressure to bear on cowardly Democrats to kill the Alito and Roberts nominations. The result has been devastating. In a letter today, Norman listed some of the "accomplishments" of Bush's Court so far:

• Chiseled away at the right of school districts to promote racial diversity.

• Placed more limitations on a woman's right to choose.

• Ruled against a woman who won a lower court decision after suffering nearly 20 years of pay discrimination.

• Struck down a high school kid's right to display a banner expressing his opinion.

• Ruled against the right of ordinary taxpayers to sue their government when they believe their tax dollars are being used to support religious organizations or activities.

Each of these cases was decided by one vote; they were all narrow, partisan 5-4 decisons with the 4 ultra-right-wing extremists, Clarence Thomas, Saclia, John Roberts and Sam Alito being joined by conservative Anthony Kennedy. What these 5 galloots all have in common is that they always favor the powerful over the powerless.

Today Norman proposed matching all donations to People For the American Way-- whether you give $20, $200 or $10,000 (all tax deductible)-- so that PFAW can work to accomplish the following goals:

• Identify Senate races and presidential battlegrounds where the Supreme Court issue can make the difference.

• Use the internet and the media to to highlight bad court decisions that will resonate in target states.

• Identify and reach target voters who will be persuaded by the Supreme Court issue.

• And keep urgently needed, ongoing pressure on the Congress to stand up, issue by issue, with the strength of its convictions!

You can donate right online, here, and you can also alert any friends you have who you think are interested in the issues of Justice in our country. Maybe they'll notice we had an example of Bush Justice today. Please join me in supporting one of the few groups inside Washington worth the time, effort and money to back up.